Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:28 am

City Journal
Roger Scruton
Forgiveness and Irony
What makes the West strong
Winter 2009

Wherever the Western vision of political order has gained a foothold, we find freedom of expression: not merely the freedom to disagree with others publicly about matters of faith and morality but also the freedom to satirize solemnity and to ridicule nonsense, including solemnity and nonsense of the sacred kind. This freedom of conscience requires secular government. But what makes secular government legitimate?

That question is the starting point of Western political philosophy, the consensus among modern thinkers being that sovereignty and law are made legitimate by the consent of those who must obey them. They show this consent in two ways: by a real or implied “social contract,” whereby each person agrees with every other to the principles of government; and by a political process through which each person participates in the making and enacting of the law. The right and duty of participation is what we mean, or ought to mean, by “citizenship,” and the distinction between political and religious communities can be summed up in the view that political communities are composed of citizens and religious communities of subjects—of those who have “submitted.” If we want a simple definition of the West as it is today, the concept of citizenship is a good starting point. That is what millions of migrants are roaming the world in search of: an order that confers security and freedom in exchange for consent.

That is what people want; it does not, however, make them happy. Something is missing from a life based purely on consent and polite accommodation with your neighbors—something of which Muslims retain a powerful image through the words of the Koran. This missing thing goes by many names: sense, meaning, purpose, faith, brotherhood, submission. People need freedom; but they also need the goal for which they can renounce it. That is the thought contained in the word “Islam”: the willing submission, from which there is no return.

It goes without saying that the word’s connotations are different for Arabic speakers and for speakers of Turkish, Malay, or Bengali. Turks, who live under a secular law derived from the legal systems of post-Napoleonic Europe, are seldom disposed to think that, as Muslims, they must live in a state of continual submission to a divine law that governs all of social and political life. The 20 percent of Muslims who are Arabs, however, feel the mesmerizing rhythms of the Koran as an unbrookable current of compulsion and are apt to take “Islam” literally. For them, this particular act of submission may mean renouncing not only freedom but also the very idea of citizenship. It may involve retreating from the open dialogue on which the secular order depends into the “shade of the Koran,” as Sayyid Qutb put it, in a disturbing book that has inspired the Muslim Brotherhood ever since. Citizenship is precisely not a form of brotherhood, of the kind that follows from a shared act of heartfelt submission: it is a relation among strangers, a collective apartness, in which fulfillment and meaning are confined to the private sphere. To have created this form of renewable loneliness is the great achievement of Western civilization, and my way of describing it raises the question of whether it is worth defending and, if so, how.

My answer is yes, it is worth defending, but only if we recognize the truth that the present conflict with Islamism makes vivid to us: citizenship is not enough, and it will endure only if associated with meanings to which the rising generation can attach its hopes and its search for identity. There is no doubt that the secular order and the search for meaning coexisted quite happily when Christianity provided its benign support to both. But (especially in Europe) Christianity has retreated from public life and is now being driven from private life as well. For people of my generation, it seemed, for a while, as though we could rediscover meaning through culture. The artistic, musical, literary, and philosophical traditions of our civilization bore so many traces of a world-transforming significance that it would be enough—we thought—to pass those things on. Each new generation could then inherit by means of them the spiritual resources that it needed. But we reckoned without two all-important facts: first, the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that without an injection of energy, all order decays; and second, the rise of what I call the “culture of repudiation,” as those appointed to inject that energy have become increasingly fatigued with the task and have eventually jettisoned the cultural baggage under whose weight they staggered.

This culture of repudiation has transmitted itself, through the media and the schools, across the spiritual terrain of Western civilization, leaving behind it a sense of emptiness and defeat, a sense that nothing is left to believe in or endorse, save only the freedom to believe. And a belief in the freedom to believe is neither a belief nor a freedom. It encourages hesitation in the place of conviction and timidity in the place of choice. It is hardly surprising that so many Muslims in our cities today regard the civilization surrounding them as doomed, even if it is a civilization that has granted them something that they may be unable to find where their own religion triumphs, which is a free, tolerant, and secular rule of law. For they were brought up in a world of certainties; around them, they encounter only doubts.

If repudiation of its past and its identity is all that Western civilization can offer, it cannot survive: it will give way to whatever future civilization can offer hope and consolation to the young and fulfill their deep-rooted human need for social membership. Citizenship, as I have described it, does not fulfill that need: and that is why so many Muslims reject it, seeking instead that consoling “brotherhood” (ikhwan) that has so often been the goal of Islamic revivals. But citizenship is an achievement that we cannot forgo if the modern world is to survive: we have built our prosperity on it, our peace and our stability, and—even if it does not provide happiness—it defines us. We cannot renounce it without ceasing to be.

What is needed is not to reject citizenship as the foundation of social order but to provide it with a heart. And in seeking that heart, we should turn away from the apologetic multiculturalism that has had such a ruinous effect on Western self-confidence and return to the gifts that we have received from our Judeo-Christian tradition.

The first of these gifts is forgiveness. By living in a spirit of forgiveness, we not only uphold the core value of citizenship but also find the path to social membership that we need. Happiness does not come from the pursuit of pleasure, nor is it guaranteed by freedom. It comes from sacrifice: that is the great message that all the memorable works of our culture convey. The message has been lost in the noise of repudiation, but we can hear it once again if we devote our energies to retrieving it. And in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the primary act of sacrifice is forgiveness. The one who forgives sacrifices resentment and thereby renounces something that had been dear to his heart.

The Koran invokes at every point the mercy, compassion, and justice of God. But the God of the Koran is not a lenient God. In His Koranic manifestation, God forgives sparingly and with obvious reluctance. He is manifestly not amused by human folly and weakness—nor, indeed, is He amused by anything. The Koran, unlike the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, is a joke-free zone.

This brings us to another of our civilization’s gifts to us: irony. There is already a developing streak of irony in the Hebrew Bible, one that the Talmud amplifies. But a new kind of irony dominates Christ’s judgments and parables, which look on the spectacle of human folly and wryly show us how to live with it. A telling example is Christ’s verdict in the case of the woman taken in adultery: “Let he who is without fault cast the first stone.” In other words: “Come off it; haven’t you wanted to do what she did, and already done it in your hearts?” Some have suggested that this story is a later insertion—one of many that the early Christians culled from the store of inherited wisdom attributed to the Redeemer after his death. Even if that is true, however, it merely confirms the view that the Christian religion has made irony central to its message. It was a troubled, post-Enlightenment Christian, Søren Kierkegaard, who pointed to irony as the virtue that united Socrates and Christ.

The late Richard Rorty saw irony as a state of mind intimately connected with the postmodern worldview—a withdrawal from judgment that nevertheless aims at a kind of consensus, a shared agreement not to judge. The ironic temperament, however, is better understood as a virtue—a disposition aimed at a kind of practical fulfillment and moral success. Venturing a definition of this virtue, I would describe it as a habit of acknowledging the otherness of everything, including oneself. However convinced you are of the rightness of your actions and the truth of your views, look on them as the actions and the views of someone else and rephrase them accordingly. So defined, irony is quite distinct from sarcasm: it is a mode of acceptance rather than a mode of rejection. It also points both ways: through irony, I learn to accept both the other on whom I turn my gaze, and also myself, the one who is gazing. Pace Rorty, irony is not free from judgment: it simply recognizes that the one who judges is also judged, and judged by himself.

The West’s democratic inheritance stems, I would argue, from the habit of forgiveness. To forgive the other is to grant him, in your heart, the freedom to be. It is therefore to acknowledge the individual as sovereign over his life and free to do both right and wrong. A society that makes permanent room for forgiveness therefore tends automatically in a democratic direction, since it is a society in which the voice of the other is heard in all decisions that affect him. Irony—the recognition and acceptance of otherness—amplifies this democratic tendency and also helps thwart the mediocrity and conformity that are the downsides of a democratic culture.

Forgiveness and irony lie at the heart of our civilization. They are what we have to be most proud of, and our principal means to disarm our enemies. They underlie our conception of citizenship as founded in consent. And they are expressed in our conception of law as a means to resolve conflicts by discovering the just solution to them. It is not often realized that this conception of law has little in common with Muslim sharia, which is regarded as a system of commands issued by God and not capable of, or in need of, further justification.

God’s commandments are important to Christians and Jews, too; but they are not seen as sufficient for the good government of human societies. They must be supplemented by another kind of law, responsive to the changing forms of human conflict. The parable of the tribute money makes this transparently clear (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”), as does the papal doctrine of the two swords—the two forms of law, human and divine, on which good government depends. The law enforced by our courts requires the parties to “submit” only to the secular jurisdiction. It treats each party as a responsible individual, acting freely for himself. This feature of law is particularly vivid in the minds of the English-speaking peoples, whose system of common law consists of freedoms—won by the citizen from the state—that the state must uphold. Sharia consists of obligations imposed by God that the courts must enforce. It is a means to ensure “submission” to the will of God, as revealed in the Koran and the Sunna.

How do these thoughts bear on our current situation? In particular, how does this invocation of deep aspects of our Judeo-Christian heritage help us respond to the threat posed by Islamist terrorism, and how can we achieve the much-needed reconciliation with Islam without which our political inheritance will remain in jeopardy?

Terrorism and Islam have become associated in the popular mind, and in response, well-intentioned commentators urge that there is nothing new in terrorism and nothing about Islam that predisposes its adherents toward the use of it. Wasn’t it the Jacobins of the French Revolution who unleashed the beast? Didn’t terrorism find its political home with the Russian nihilists of the nineteenth century, thereafter to be adopted by radical movements throughout the twentieth?

The response is reasonable, but it prompts us to explore the deeper question of motive. What draws people to the use of terror? Is it chosen, as its apologists suggest, as a tactical device? Or is it chosen as an end in itself? From a certain perspective, it seems plausible to trace modern terrorism to the Enlightenment, to the idea of human equality, and to the attitude of ressentiment that Nietzsche rightly discerned in the heart of modern communities—the desire to destroy what one longs for when seeing it in others’ hands. But such a diagnosis ignores the fact that terrorism, as typified by the Russian nihilists and recorded in their name, is radically disconnected from any goal. Sometimes, it is true, terrorists—the Bolsheviks, the IRA, ETA—have furnished themselves with a cause, making believe that with the achievement of a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a united Ireland, or a Basque national state, their purposes will be achieved and they can lay down their arms. But the cause is usually vague and utopian to the point of unreality, and its nonachievement seems part of its point—a way to justify the constant renewal of violence.

Terrorists might equally be entirely causeless, or dedicated to a cause so vaguely and metaphysically characterized that nobody (least of all themselves) could believe it to be achievable. Such were the Russian nihilists, as Dostoyevsky and Turgenev described them. Such, too, were the Italian Brigate Rosse and the German Baader-Meinhof gang of my youth. As Michael Burleigh shows in his magisterial Blood and Rage, modern terrorism has been far more interested in violence than in anything that might be achieved by it. It is typified by Joseph Conrad’s Professor, in The Secret Agent, who raises his glass “to the destruction of all that is.”

The vague or utopian character of the cause is therefore an important part of terrorism’s appeal, for it means that the cause does not define or limit the action. It is waiting to be filled with meaning by the terrorist, who is searching to change not the world but himself. To kill someone who has neither offended you nor given just cause for punishment, you have to believe yourself wrapped in some kind of angelic cloak of justification. You then come to see the killing as showing that you are indeed an angel. Your existence receives its final ontological proof.

Terrorists pursue a moral exultation, a sense of being beyond the reach of ordinary human judgment, radiated by a self-assumed permission of the kind enjoyed by God. Terrorism of this kind, in other words, is a search for meaning—the very meaning that citizenship, conceived in abstract terms, cannot provide. Even in its most secularized form, terrorism involves a kind of religious hunger.

It is very difficult to kill the innocent Mrs. Smith and her children as they go about their family shopping. Hence this strategy for ego-building cannot begin simply from the desire to kill. Mrs. Smith must become something else—a symbol of some abstract condition, a kind of incarnation of a universal enemy. Terrorists of the modern kind therefore tend to lean on doctrines that remove the humanity from the people they target. Marx’s theories served this purpose well, since they created the idea of the bourgeoisie, the “class enemy,” who had the same function in Bolshevik ideology as the Jews did in the ideology of the Nazis. Mrs. Smith and her children stand behind the target, which is the abstract bourgeois family. It just so happens that, when the bomb hits this target made of fictions, the shrapnel passes easily through it into the real body of Mrs. Smith. Sad for the Smiths, and often you will find terrorists making a kind of abstract apology, saying that it wasn’t their fault that Mrs. Smith got blown up and that really people ought not to stand behind targets in quite that way.

Islamist terrorists are animated, at some level, by the same troubled search for meaning and the same need to stand above their victims in a posture of transcendental exculpation. Ideas of liberty, equality, or historical right have no influence on their thinking, and they are not interested in possessing the powers and privileges that their targets enjoy. The things of this world have no real value for them, and if they sometimes seem to aim at power, it is only because power would enable them to establish the kingdom of God—an aim that they, like the rest of us, know to be impossible and therefore endlessly renewable in the wake of failure. Their carelessness about others’ lives is matched by their carelessness about their own. Life has no particular value for them; death beckons constantly from the near horizon of their vision. And in death, they perceive the only meaning that matters: the final transcendence of this world and of the accountability to others that this world demands of us.

People inoculated by the culture of repudiation, reluctant to acknowledge the search for meaning as a human universal, tend to think that all conflicts are really political, concerning who has power over whom. They are apt to believe that the causes of Islamist terrorism lie in the “social injustice” against which the terrorists protest and that the failure of all other attempts to rectify things renders their regrettable methods necessary. This seems to me to misinterpret radically the motives of terrorism in general and of Islamism in particular. The Islamist terrorist, like the European nihilist, is primarily interested in himself and his spiritual condition, and he has no real desire to change things here below, where he does not belong. He wants to belong to God, not to the world, and this means witnessing to God’s law and kingdom by destroying all that stands in their way, his own body included. Death is his ultimate act of submission: through death, he dissolves into a new and immortal brotherhood. The terror that his death inflicts both exalts the world of brotherhood and casts a devastating blow against the rival world of strangers, in which citizenship, not brotherhood, is the binding principle.

This is why we should recognize that we face a new kind of threat, one that does not have limited or negotiable objectives, that we cannot easily meet with a military confrontation, and that the usual means cannot deter. There is nothing we can offer the Islamists that will enable them to say that they have achieved their goal. If they succeeded in destroying a Western city with a nuclear bomb, or a whole population with a deadly virus, they would regard it as a triumph, even though it conferred no material, political, or religious benefit whatsoever.

Of course, the mass of ordinary Muslims would be appalled at such an event and would regard mass murder of the kind contemplated by al-Qaida as an outrage absolutely forbidden by the law of God. And there are encouraging signs that thinking Muslims are attempting to find a way to declare a public commitment to coexistence with the other two Abrahamic religions and to uphold the love of neighbor, even when the neighbor is of another faith. Witness the 2007 letter to religious leaders in the West, signed by 140 distinguished Muslim scholars, calling for dialogue among the faiths and for mutual respect as the foundation of coexistence. However, we should note two important facts. The first is that Islam has never succeeded in establishing any decisive source of religious authority. Each spiritual leader is self-appointed, like the Ayatollah Khomeini, and has no credibility outside his own circle of followers. People often say what a pity it is that Islam has had no Protestant Reformation. In fact, it is one unending series of Protestant Reformations, each of which claims to be the sole truth in the matter of man’s obedience to God.

The second important fact—and it is, I believe, connected—is that Muslims show a remarkable ability to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed in the name of their faith and to rally against anyone who disparages it. The notorious Danish cartoons caused outrage, uniting Muslims everywhere in acts of destruction and calls for revenge. A few days later, the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, one of the Shiite community’s holiest places, was blown up by Islamists. But where were the protests, outside Iraq? Far more Muslims than non-Muslims have been killed by Islamic terrorists. But when do those who claim to speak for Muslims mention this statistic? For that matter, the whole point of the infamous cartoons was to make us look at the atrocious things done in the Prophet’s name. Does he approve or doesn’t he?

Muslims must face up to this question. But a rooted double standard often prevents their turning on fellow Muslims the self-righteous anger that they turn on enemies of the faith. Such double standards are the direct result of the loss of irony. They stem from an inability to accept the otherness of everything, to stand outside one’s own opinions, and even one’s own faith, so as to see it as the faith of someone else. Not that Islam has always lacked irony in this respect: the works of the Sufi masters are full of it. But the Sufi masters (I think of Rumi and Hafiz especially) belong to that great and self-knowing Islamic culture on which the Islamists have turned their backs, embracing instead the narrow-minded bigotry of Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab or the self-deceived nostalgia of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb.

The confrontation that we are involved in is thus not political or economic; it is not the first step toward a negotiation or a calling to account. It is an existential confrontation. The question put to us is: “What right do you have to exist?” By answering, “None whatsoever,” we invite the reply, “That’s what I thought.” An answer can avert the threat only by facing it down; and that means being absolutely convinced that we do have a right to exist and that we are prepared to concede an equal right to our opponents, though only on condition that the concession is mutual. No other strategy has a remote chance of succeeding.

Al-Qaida may be weak; the whole conspiracy to destroy the West may be little more than a fiction in the brains of the neoconservatives, who themselves may be a fiction in the brains of liberals. But the threat does not come from a conspiracy or from an organization. It comes from individuals undergoing a traumatic experience that we do not fully understand—the experience of a déraciné Muslim confronting the modern world, and without the benefit of the two gifts of forgiveness and irony. Such a person is an unpredictable by-product of unforeseen and uncomprehended circumstances, and our best efforts to understand his motives have so far suggested no policy that would deter attacks.

What, then, should our stance be in this existential confrontation? I think we should emphasize the very great virtues and achievements that we have built on our legacy of tolerance and show a willingness to criticize and amend all the vices to which it has also given undue space. We should resurrect Locke’s distinction between liberty and license and make it absolutely clear to our children that liberty is a form of order, not a license for anarchy and self-indulgence. We should cease to mock the things that mattered to our parents and grandparents, and we should be proud of what they achieved. This is not arrogance but a just recognition of our privileges.

We should also drop all the multicultural waffling that has so confused public life in the West and reaffirm the core idea of social membership in the Western tradition, which is the idea of citizenship. By sending out the message that we believe in what we have, are prepared to share it, but are not prepared to see it destroyed, we do the only thing that we can do to defuse the current conflict. Because forgiveness is at the heart of our culture, this message ought surely to be enough, even if we proclaim it in a spirit of irony.

Roger Scruton is a writer and philosopher. His article is adapted from his McNish Lecture for the Advancement of Western Civilization at the University of Calgary.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

piston
Posts: 10767
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:50 am

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by piston » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:05 am

Solid, convincing perspectives on western civilization and Islam. His "culture of repudiation" idea resonated with this reader. There is a number of intellectuals today who are so prone to question every research-based findings or "facts" with their "descent into discourse" that their educational impact amounts to little more than to discourage people to do research....

The author is a bit more idealistic with his notion of democracy = forgiveness and tolerance, I think. As a student of history, I fail to see this notion as having been a fundamental precept in numerous contexts, from the Puritans to the ideological witch hunts of the twentieth century. I understand that such less tolerant groups and periods are nothing compared to Islamism, yet they nevertheless imply that such were not always the key characteristics of democracy. Moreover, most wars have entailed a significant dehumanization of the enemy particularly in cases of other races or more "alien" cultures.
In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished—a word that for them has no sense—but abandoned....(Paul Valéry)

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:20 am

Thank you for posting this smashing article, Corlyss! I didn't just read it. I savored it. I haven't read such beautiful syntax since Clive James's Cultural Amnesia. I've never before read a definition of citizenship that is as clear as comprehensive as this. I believe Scruton is right about the human need for something beyond citizenship too. And I believe he's right about the damage it does us all to repudiate the culture of the past. We can expand liberty and equality without throwing out our glorious Dead White Males.

After the 9/11 attack, I thought George Bush was an idiot when he said the hijackers did it "because they hate our freedom." Later on I read a book about the Muslim Brotherhood, and found out that GWB was right after all. Crude, but right. Scruton mentions Sayyid Qutb, who wrote the manifesto of the Brotherhood in 1948, and its goal is indeed to destroy democracy and replace it with Sharia.

I take exception to one thing in the article: Scruton's description of the motives and character of terrorists, lumping them all together. Terrorism is wrong, no matter the circumstances, just as torture is always wrong. But some terrorists have a just cause. They're not all destroyers for destruction's sake, and I believe that is what Scruton is saying.

I googled Scruton and found this information about him at http://www.roger-scruton.com/rs-cv.html. Look at all this treasure, the things he's written that we didn't even know about until Corlyss gave him to us!
Image

BC
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by BC » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:51 am

There's a harder circle to square than Scruton ever quite admits when he concedes he doesn't believe in God but thinks the world would be a better place if others did. Implicit is that there's a category of intellectuals (including Scruton) who are just too intelligent to be fooled by religion, but fortunately have the character to cope; while lesser individuals should be encouraged to a belief Scruton thinks false, for their own good. Even if you accept this fairly bizarre proposition I don't see how you can bring it about without constructing a society based on a massive, stinking hypocrisy - one that hardly seems likely to be less morally corrupting than whatever it's replacing.

HoustonDavid
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:20 am
Location: Houston, Texas, USA

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by HoustonDavid » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:53 pm

I don't want to make generalities about the varied Muslim sects (i.e. Shia, Kurd, Sunni, Wahabi, et al) but my understanding is that the principal difference between Sunni and Shia is that:

Sunnis believe in the correctness of the Koran and the generally agreed upon interpretation of it through Sunni clerics and their historical writings on the subject.
Shias believe in the individual interpretations of the Quoran by their clerics "each to his own" so to speak, leading to multiple and diverse interpretations.

There are certainly greatly diverse interpretations of the Bible and New Testament in Christendom, including some individual pastors who seem to believe outside the mainstream churches, but nothing would be comparable to the Shia/Sunni split except the split between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. Even the Catholic Church was split into East and West. Christianity has had its share of wars, not unlike Sunni and Shia, so it is nothing new in history. Christian (and I use that word loosely) terrorists have often martyred themselves in the belief they had the only "right" answer and everyone else is doomed to eternal damnation.

As someone much wiser than I once said, "History repeats itself".
"May You be born in interesting (maybe confusing?) times" - Chinese Proverb (or Curse)

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:11 pm

Bellelettres wrote:Terrorism is wrong, no matter the circumstances, just as torture is always wrong. But some terrorists have a just cause. They're not all destroyers for destruction's sake, and I believe that is what Scruton is saying.

I googled Scruton and found this information about him at http://www.roger-scruton.com/rs-cv.html. Look at all this treasure, the things he's written that we didn't even know about until Corlyss gave him to us!
Really? Which causes justify terrorism (and if such a noble cause justifies terrorism (the deliberate targeting of innocents for wanton murder and crippling injury), why not torture to prevent such an outrage against humanity? If the noble cause justifies the murder of children, why would it not also justify torture for its own sake?

A vandal is different from a terrorist, and I couldn't see that in Scruton's article.

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:15 pm

Brendan, I didn't say any cause justifies terrorism. In fact, I said just the opposite. No cause justifies terrorism. But some people who have been terrorists have done it for a just cause. Their cause was just, not their acts of terrorism.
Image

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:19 pm

Ok, which just causes have terrorists fought for? Not too many spring to my mind.

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:24 pm

Freedom from British oppression in Northern Ireland. The Nat Turner rebellion. The John Brown rebellion.
Image

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:28 pm

When I was at school in London the IRA bombed the Wimpy hamburger place on Oxford Street where my friends used to gather on the first day of school holidays. When the criminal, drug-financed IRA finally bombed their own once too often the Irish people turned against them. Nothing but the lowest filth in my eyes, and I'm of Irish-Catholic stock.

Turner and Brown were not terrorists.

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:40 pm

Is that relevant? I said terrorism is not justified even for a just cause. The reason it's not justified is that it kills people who did not cause the injustice.
Image

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:41 pm

Turner certainly was. He killed the family of his "master," among whom was a young daughter who had befriended him.
Image

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:44 pm

Irish independence has been forever tainted by its terrorist associations and turning against the UK whilst in the midst of world war 1. No noble revolution there. Given the evolution of the twentieth century and the Scottish Parliament, it was utterly unnecessary. No, it was not a cause that justified any terrorism, and terrorism was not employed by a just cause in this case. The other two are not terrorism. Murder and revolt are not terrorism. Look it up.

Still can't see terrorism being used for a just cause. That's your belief.

Did you actually read Scruton's article?

People inoculated by the culture of repudiation, reluctant to acknowledge the search for meaning as a human universal, tend to think that all conflicts are really political, concerning who has power over whom. They are apt to believe that the causes of Islamist terrorism lie in the “social injustice” against which the terrorists protest and that the failure of all other attempts to rectify things renders their regrettable methods necessary. This seems to me to misinterpret radically the motives of terrorism in general and of Islamism in particular.
Last edited by Brendan on Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9808
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by karlhenning » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:53 pm

Brendan wrote:Still can't see terrorism being used for a just cause. That's your belief.
Bellelettres wrote:I said terrorism is not justified even for a just cause.
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:55 pm

Bellelettres wrote:I take exception to one thing in the article: Scruton's description of the motives and character of terrorists, lumping them all together. Terrorism is wrong, no matter the circumstances, just as torture is always wrong. But some terrorists have a just cause. They're not all destroyers for destruction's sake, and I believe that is what Scruton is saying.
I quoted this first time around, Karl. Which terrorists have a just cause?

If you think the Irish and the IRA, then I disagree with furious objection. Turner and Brown were not terrorists. Anything else to add?

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:58 pm

We obviously disagree on which causes are just, Brendan. We obviously disagree on the definition of terrorism. Maybe you should look it up. And it would be good if you would stop implying that I think some causes justify terrorism.
Image

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:01 pm

Which terrorists have a just cause, as you claimed? I have dealt with the Irish etc, and I use the UN definition. Which do you use?

People inoculated by the culture of repudiation, reluctant to acknowledge the search for meaning as a human universal, tend to think that all conflicts are really political, concerning who has power over whom. They are apt to believe that the causes of Islamist terrorism lie in the “social injustice” against which the terrorists protest and that the failure of all other attempts to rectify things renders their regrettable methods necessary. This seems to me to misinterpret radically the motives of terrorism in general and of Islamism in particular.

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:05 pm

Never mind, Brendan. We're not on the same wavelength.
Image

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:09 pm

No, we are not. Do read Scruton's article again:

Ideas of liberty, equality, or historical right have no influence on their thinking, and they are not interested in possessing the powers and privileges that their targets enjoy. The things of this world have no real value for them, and if they sometimes seem to aim at power, it is only because power would enable them to establish the kingdom of God—an aim that they, like the rest of us, know to be impossible and therefore endlessly renewable in the wake of failure. Their carelessness about others’ lives is matched by their carelessness about their own. Life has no particular value for them; death beckons constantly from the near horizon of their vision. And in death, they perceive the only meaning that matters: the final transcendence of this world and of the accountability to others that this world demands of us.

Bellelettres
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Bellelettres » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:27 pm

I don't need to read it again, Brendan. And please don't trouble yourself to give me any more advice.
Image

Brendan

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Brendan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:58 pm

If you missed the entire point of the article and are still claiming injustice or just causes for terrorism, then I think you do need to read it again. That's just MHO, of course.

I'll stop pointing out your inconsistencies and such when you stop making claims, such as that some terrorists fight for just causes, without any evidence or support whatsoever. Fair enough?

Chanan
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:17 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Chanan » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:17 am

Great essay. Thanks. City Journal is one of my favorite periodicals, and I highly recommend checking out the think-tank which publishes it, the Manhattan Institute:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/
"Americans need to face up to the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is."
-Jean Kirkpatrick

"Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you."
"Opposition is True Friendship."

-William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 1796

My Blogs:
http://adamzionistjourney.blogspot.com/

Barry
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Barry » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:18 pm

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil
When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?
By JUDEA PEARL

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance." Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera's management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn't seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a "resistance" movement, together with honorary membership in PBS's imaginary "cycle of violence." In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that "each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression." He then stated -- without blushing -- that for readers of the Hebrew Bible "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." The "cycle of violence" platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror's victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas -- the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains -- to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, "Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza," to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph -- another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny's picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Mr. Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, founded in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Chanan
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:17 pm

Re: Roger Scruton on the West's Strength

Post by Chanan » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:54 pm

Barry wrote:Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil
When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?
By JUDEA PEARL

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.
I'm incredibly moved by the fact that Judea Pearl responded to the brutal murder and beheading of his son - killed merely because he was a Jew - by establishing a foundation to promote cross-cultural understanding. He didn't call for revenge or exploit his son's death for political purposes - a dramatic contrast with the ethical code of his son's executioners and their apologists throughout the world.
"Americans need to face up to the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is."
-Jean Kirkpatrick

"Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you."
"Opposition is True Friendship."

-William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 1796

My Blogs:
http://adamzionistjourney.blogspot.com/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests